On Thu, 21 Nov 2024, Matthew Malcomson wrote:
> Based on that -- should the same reasoning apply to the new builtins?
> I.e. do you believe it would be reasonable to say that the new builtins
> require libatomic, and remove this flag entirely?
I think it's reasonable to say that atomic built-in f
Attempting to resend since got rejected from gcc-patches mailing list.
(Apologies about the duplication to those on Cc).
On 11/18/24 11:25, Matthew Malcomson wrote:
On 11/14/24 18:44, Joseph Myers wrote:
External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024,mmalcom...@n
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024, mmalcom...@nvidia.com wrote:
> N.b. I would appreciate any feedback about how one should handle such a
> situation when working with C11 _Atomic types. They have the same
> problem that they require libatomic and sometimes libatomic is not
> available. Is this just something
From: Matthew Malcomson
N.b. including docs maintainers to ask about whether this flag should be
documented in invoke.texi -- I suspect that would be determined partly
based on the feedback I get on this patch about whether it should be
something mostly for the testsuite and otherwise internally
